Back to 1800?
Marriage licenses became mandatory in 1639, in Massachusetts.
From THE COLONIAL FAMILY IN AMERICA “While we think of the early New England settlers as very religious, they actually viewed marriage as a civil contract, not a religious contract. Consequently, marriage was a function of the magistrates more than the clergy.”
From LEGISLATIVE GUIDE TO MARRIAGE LAW Iowa.gov “They (Puritans founders of Massachusetts) believed that marriage was not a religious ceremony but a civil contract. They required that this covenant must be “agreed” or “executed” (not “performed” or “solemnized”) before a magistrate, and not a minister. They also insisted that if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken, then the union could be ended by divorce. These attitudes became the basis of regional marriage customs throughout New England.”
You also have to address property deeds. There are some forms currently available only to married couples, if I remember correctly.
Which goes to show the status of marriage may affect a lot of laws.
by 5-4 majority vote by Supreme Court judges..... who were appointed by a Senate majority ...... which was elected by majority vote......after a Presidential nomination by a president elected by a majority of state electoral votes........illegally amended the United States Constitution to impose its own queer morality on “We, the People”.......to protect a newly created group, ie a “minority” from the tyranny of a majority...thereby illegally amending the Constitution according to the morality of a minority by slim majority vote....not great enough to pass a real Constitutional amendment
All of this can be “fixed” by the congress. However, if we can not get moral men of character elected having courage of conviction to defeat evil all else is mute.
And it is evident we can not get it done........
Back to 1800?
The Continental Congress passed the first federal law regarding our married GIs, in 1780, they upgraded the federal legislation regarding our married GIs, in 1794, then 1798, 1802, and so on.
most of these solutions require action by those who are the source of the problem.
How about this one?... All pastors opposed to gay marriage should just resign their state appointed licenses to marry.
Since marriage is now defined to have new meaning which is in opposition to God’s laws, God fearing pastors should relinquish their government licenses to do so.
This would not mean pastors cannot conduct marriages how they wish... it just means that they would not be officially recognized by “the State”.... and since civil unions are so easily obtained for “whatever” reason, why not treat it separately... once again giving new meaning to the principle of “separation of church and state”.
A legitimate couple after being married by the pastor can file separately for civil union documents from the government for tax purposes. Also let us not forget laws which recognize a couple as married after they have been simply living together for so many years.
The Church does not “NEED” the state to conduct marriage ceremonies....
And....
The “State” does not “Need” the church to bind couples in legal arrangements.
What about an idea similar to the bill Oklahoma tried to pass (but failed to).
Instead of marriage licenses, there could be contracts.
Only now there could be different kinds of contracts (or forms) that couples fill out. And one could be for a man and woman - a contract that addresses provisions for any biological children who may be born into the marriage.
It is the same answer for when Massachusetts State Supreme Court bent the law thirteen ways to Sunday with their decision, effectively declaring all marriages to be unconstitutional (unless it was fixed...) Good; they're no longer recognized. Whatcha gonna do now, state supreme court?
However, Romney couldn't bring himself to do the obvious.
The expressions “overkill” and “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” come to mind.
Inevitably when one of these articles is posted, some poster comments that only 2% of the population is gay and that only some of them will get married. So it seems a little over the top to think that the federal government and all 50 states will throw out centuries of laws in reaction to a fraction of the gays now being able to get married.
A Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a future court. It is done by replacing current liberal justices with conservative. Conservative justices can only be nominated by conservative presidents.
It it important to rally around and support a conservative for president in 2016. The rulings by the Supreme Court should help to rally many of those who sat out the last few elections. If they sit out the 2016 elections, they have no one to blame except themselves.
#1 and #2 would work, assuming we elect a real conservative and not someone “severely conservative” but only on the campaign trail. #3 would fail. We already saw state supreme courts rule that state constitutional amendments defining “marriage” to mean marriage were unconstitutional.
#1 is the most reliable.
“......we’d need MANY more Republicans in both houses of Congress to get this one accomplished, as well as in the states.”........
If this approach is used, every damn one of the candidates MUST be well vetted and screened before even being considered. Just having an “R” after their name doesn’t cut it these days.
or just accept more illegals or Muslims. Ironically, they do not agree with gay marriage and will fight it.
We did DOMA already. Did everyone forget about that?
I think #2 and 3 are like tryng to shove toothpaste back into the tube.
#1 is possible but doesn’t take human nature into account. Take the subject of marriage away for a second. Call it pet licenses. Say that everyone needs to license their cat or dog. Then suddenly a bunch of people come up wanting to license their frogs and weasels. So a new law is passed to allow anyone to license any animal. Some cat and dog owners don’t enjoy it. But the majority of people don’t really care. The cat and dog owners want to get rid of pet licenses altogether, just have people owning animals without needing a license. Yes, it would work. But there just isn’t enough pressure for a fight.
Hnnn hnnn, you said three ways and gay marriage in the same sentence, hnnn hnnn hnnn.